There has been quite a bit of discussion about what the Authoritative Interpretation of the 217th General Assembly (PUP as amended) really means for the Church. Soon our stated clerk, whose job it is to “preserve and defend the Constitution” of the church will issue an advisory opinion about what the Assembly did. His advisory opinion is important, because it will likely give sessions and presbyteries their first official word about whether, in his opinion, sexually active gays and lesbians may be ordained or installed. For now, the Office of the General Assembly has set up a page of FAQs where it asks the question, “Will gays and lesbians now be ordained,” but it does not answer the question.
I have given my opinion (link to June27 Presbyweb viewpoint) that if one is really committed to preserving and defending the Constitution, the only conclusion one can come to is that officers are still limited to “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” Ed Koster, the stated clerk of Detroit Presbytery, has offered his own opinion that comes to the same conclusion (link to Outlook article). Roman’>
What matters even more than Mr. Koster’s opinion or my own is first, the advisory opinion of the stated clerk, and second, the eventual determinations of governing bodies in examining officers and of permanent judicial commissions in issuing rulings when the decisions of governing bodies are challenged.
The AI of the 1978 GA which was retained by the most recent Assembly and was a prelude to reunion is not often mentioned, but I have come to the conclusion this week that it helps us to preserve and defend the Constitution.
The authoritative interpretation of 1978 which was adopted by the Assemblies of both predecessor denominations of the PC(USA) has been re-affirmed several times in the PC(USA). It reads:
“For the church to ordain a self affirming, practicing homosexual person to ministry would be an act in contradiction to its charter and calling in Scripture, setting in motion both within the church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ.” (UPC Minutes 1978, Part I, p. 264.)
Many believe that reunion between the PCUS and the UPCUSA would never have happened absent this agreed AI. There have been many interpretations of what the most recent Assembly did, but none of them has really focused on the effect of the retention of the 1978 AI which helped bring the two separated parts of the PC(USA) back together.
First let us look at three recent interpretations of the 217th Assembly’s action. Then let us consider what happens if we read those interpretations alongside the AI of 1978, reaffirmed by the GA in 1986 and 1993 and by the GA Permanent Judicial commission in 2000, and now retained by the most recent Assembly.
Option # 1 Fidelity/Chastity is still the absolute standard for all
Ed Koster, stated clerk of Detroit Presbytery, has written an a Guest Viewpoint in Presbyterian Outlook in which he argues persuasively that if anything the new AI has made it more difficult for governing bodies to ordain or install practicing homosexual persons as officers. Koster writes: “Since the General Assembly approved the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task Force report, some of the press have been reporting that it has approved the ordination of non-celibate homosexual persons at the discretion of local ordaining bodies. The press have it wrong, and in fact the Authoritative Interpretation approved by the General Assembly has probably made it less likely that such ordinations will be allowed.” Koster’s argument, by one who is said to favor the removal of G-6.0106 b by Constitutional amendment, deserves a careful reading.
Option II. Fidelity/Chastity is still the absolute standard for all but it is not clear that the clerk and PJC s will clearly affirm this standard.
2. I myself (06/22/06 Presbyweb article link), and to a lesser extent, Robert Gagnon (6/28/04 Presbyweb article link), seem to think that Mr. Koster is arguably right given the totality of what the Constitution says and of what the new AI (PUP as amended) says. But we fear un-objective and postmodern readings of the Constitution and of the AI by stated clerks and by PJCs who could let their desire for the ordination of practicing homosexuals cloud their minds and prevent a plain reading of all the pertinent authorities.
Option 3: We do not know if non-celibate gays and lesbians can now be ordained
Unfortunately, this seems to be the current response of the Office of the General Assembly. The question on everybody’s mind, “Will gays and lesbians now be ordained?”(sic, the words “sexually active” or “practicing” should have been inserted) is posed by the OGA at the PCUSA website in a series of Frequently Asked Questions. Unfortunately although the OGA, which is administered by the GA stated clerk, asks this question, it does not provide any answer. However, we can still hope and pray that the soon-to-be released advisory opinion by the clerk will both “preserve and defend the Constitution” and give a much clearer answer to this question. However, for now, the OGA says: “Presbyteries and sessions have been reminded of their historical responsibility to examine candidates for ordination and decide, on a case-by-case basis, about a person’s qualifications for ministry. The constitutional standard in the Book of Order (G-6.0106b) requiring “fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman” or “chastity in singleness” remains in place. Each governing body will be required to decide if a departure from a standard of faith or practice represents a violation of an “essential” of the faith. Governing bodies have been encouraged to strive to honor one another’s ordination decisions. Still, these decisions continue to be subject to review by higher governing bodies.”
Note that the OGA website does not answer its own question “Will gays and lesbians be ordained?” (This is perhaps along the lines of what option # 2 above predicts)
How Does the 1978 AI which was retained explicitly by the 217th GA Affect the three Options Above? How should the Clerk and PJCs factor it in?
Here again is this often overlooked but still operative AI:
“For the church to ordain a self affirming, practicing homosexual person to ministry would be an act in contradiction to its charter and calling in Scripture, setting in motion both within the church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ.”( UPC Minutes 1978, Part I, p. 264.)
Notice what this Authoritative interpretation, which is still in force, says:
1. Any ordination done in the PC(USA) is an ordination of the whole church. (see also G-14.0100 and W-4.4001)
2. Ordaining any self-affirming practicing homosexual person to ministry would be an act in contradiction to the church’s charter and calling in Scripture.
3. Such an ordination of any self-affirming practicing homosexual person to ministry would set in motion within church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ.
My view is that the AI from 1978 is very helpful and seals the case, if the case still needs sealing for anyone. Using the above AI from 1978, retained by the 2006 Assembly, to help interpret the AI of the 2006 Assembly leads to one inescapable conclusion: The fidelity chastity requirement of G-6.0106b cannot be set aside as a non essential of polity not only because it is a requirement which was put into the Constitution by a vote of the GA and a majority of the presbyteries, but also because according to the wise counsel of the 1978 AI, retained by the most recent Assembly, to permit the ordination or installation of practicing homosexuals would “be an act in contradiction to the church’s charter and calling in Scripture” and “would set in motion within church and society serious contradictions to the will of Christ.”
Case closed.
Jones was a candidate for GA stated clerk in 2000.
